Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts

[stemelbow]

57 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Depends on what you mean by "it"? If you mean the existence of there being multiple accounts of the First Vision, then as Elder Ballard pointed out in the discussion at least going back to 1970. Additional articles about multiple accounts were published in the 80's, 90's, and beyond. 

If by "it" you mean some particular account, then I guess it depends on which one you are referring to. 

Well it was a reference to the 1832 account.  Mentioning the account in an article whose purpose is to say the accounts fit together isn't really publishing the account.  On that it's pretty odd that Elder Ballard used the 1970 article to try and argue against the Church having hid something regarding the first vision.  the 1970 article doesn't quote from or copy the 1832 account, which was hidden.  It merely mentions it.  The other sad part of that article is is that it doesn't mention that the 1832 "strange" account had, at the time, only recently come to light after having been hidden away in the possession of a Church leader.  Since this thread is designed to talk about the face to face by Ballard and Oaks, it is weird that Ballard claimed that no Church leaders have ever in anyway, tried to hide anything while also alluding to this issue of the First Vision accounts.  Well, weird, or either, really ignorant or deceptive.  I guess we can say they simply didn't know what they were talking about--after all they aren't experts on everything, or possibly anything.  But then why pretend they are?  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just curious, do any of you out there speak up in class when a teacher gives wrong info about say polygamy, have you made mention how JS lived it? Have any of you taught about JS's polygamy to anyone that didn't know about it in your families? Have any of you brought up the church essays? I don't want to derail, if I'm doing that. But just wanted to see if any of you that are stalwart in their belief in the church have brought it up in a class setting or amongst family/friends when they act as if they are unaware. Also, those that are on the fringe of belief or no belief at all I would love to know how they went about it. And what kind of reactions occurred. Maybe Calm could enable my question to be on another thread and maybe even a poll. She offered to help me start a topic on something since I'm on "limited". But if it can be done on this thread, minus the poll, then good enough. Calm's super busy so I don't want her worrying about it. 

I can't start a thread either.  But, over the years, yes I've commented, corrected or offered my thoughts in classes or while teaching which are opposed to the dominant narrative, the teaching manuals, or general member's perceptions and opinions.  It's hard to do, sometimes.  But a couple of years ago I got in trouble for doing it too much.  My bishop, then SP, asked me to sit back and not participate.  I usually haven't done it in a conclusive or absolute way  (Take Joseph practiced polygamy.  I don't chime in saying "Joseph practiced polygamy, married teenagers, women already married; did it behind Emma's back and lied about it".   I usually say, "it seems most scholars and people who have looked into it agree that Joseph practiced polygamy, and married somewhere around 30 or 40 women, mostly in the last 3 years of his life, ranging in ages from 14-60, and if asked offer some resources like Brian Hales--because he's so friendly with the Church).  I think it's tough to do it convincingly and clearly--kind of an art.  

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Earlier, you said you distrust the Brethren because they didn't give you a 'true and accurate narrative' about the church's founding. But it seems as though you believe that narrative to be true. So what's the big deal? 

The narrative of the church is far greater than whether Joseph saw one or two heavenly beings in the grove.

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Like I said before, I think a church history or institute class is pretty much the only venue where you could spend the time necessary to adequately discuss the multiple first vision accounts. It's way too much content to cover in under an hour. 

 

I disagree.  You could certainly discuss the 1832 account in less than an hour.  And, fortunately, most members give the church 3-6 hours of their time EVERY week.  Plenty of time to discuss Joseph's first account of his meeting with the Lord.

Also, when I served my mission in the early 90's we were taught to keep the first discussion (which included teaching the first vision) to under 45 minutes.  I'm confident a class could discuss the 1832 first vision account in under and hour.

The church produced a manual almost 600 pages long for Priesthood and RS that is dedicated to the life and teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith.  It includes a chapter on the first vision.  But I don't see the 1832 account nor do I see any reference to the multiple versions.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Unsure. If I have some time, I'll see if I can find out though.

 

I'm curious to see what you can find.  Do you believe these two previously unpublished first vision accounts were published by the church in the 1960's somewhere?  If that took place, they should be fairly easy for you to find.

Edited November 30, 2017 by ALarson

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm curious to see what you can find.  Do you believe these two previously unpublished first vision accounts were published by the church in the 1960's somewhere?  If that took place, they should be fairly easy for you to find.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/early-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision

BYU Studies, according James Allen wasn't widely distributed to members. I called my Mom who joined the Church in 1967 and she doesn't recall when she first found out about Joseph Smith''s differing accounts but she said she had other things on her mind to worry about

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/early-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision

BYU Studies, according James Allen wasn't widely distributed to members. I called my Mom who joined the Church in 1967 and she doesn't recall when she first found out about Joseph Smith''s differing accounts but she said she had other things on her mind to worry about

Yep, this is something that most members would not have had access to, if they even knew it existed.

[kiwi57]

On 11/29/2017 at 9:04 AM, rockpond said:

It definitely matters.  When I went through my faith crisis, the painful part was not the new facts that I was learning.  Rather, it was discovering that those facts had been hidden from me by the very priesthood leaders in which I had placed my trust and my life.

Ballard asked those listening to his message to trust him.  Sorry - I cannot trust him.  It's not that I think he's a bad person but he was willing to speak to the church and claim knowledge that he doesn't have in order to support declarations that are false.

You really must try to stop making these false accusations, Rockpond.

I see no reason to stop trusting Elder Ballard.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Well it was a reference to the 1832 account.  Mentioning the account in an article whose purpose is to say the accounts fit together isn't really publishing the account.  On that it's pretty odd that Elder Ballard used the 1970 article to try and argue against the Church having hid something regarding the first vision.  the 1970 article doesn't quote from or copy the 1832 account, which was hidden.  It merely mentions it.  The other sad part of that article is is that it doesn't mention that the 1832 "strange" account had, at the time, only recently come to light after having been hidden away in the possession of a Church leader.  Since this thread is designed to talk about the face to face by Ballard and Oaks, it is weird that Ballard claimed that no Church leaders have ever in anyway, tried to hide anything while also alluding to this issue of the First Vision accounts.  Well, weird, or either, really ignorant or deceptive.  I guess we can say they simply didn't know what they were talking about--after all they aren't experts on everything, or possibly anything.  But then why pretend they are?  

I understood Elder Ballard to be responding to the criticism that the church has hidden the fact that there is more than one rendition of the first vision. His response to that question seems appropriate to me - namely, that the church hasn't tried to hide the fact that there are multiple accounts of the first vision. 

If you want to complain about the church not having published all of the extant accounts in their entirety early enough and widely enough for your liking, that's fine. But now you're talking about a different criticism. 

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

You really must try to stop making these false accusations, Rockpond.

I've provided evidence to backup what I've said.

7 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I see no reason to stop trusting Elder Ballard.

Good for you.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I understood Elder Ballard to be responding to the criticism that the church has hidden the fact that there is more than one rendition of the first vision. His response to that question seems appropriate to me - namely, that the church hasn't tried to hide the fact that there are multiple accounts of the first vision. 

That may have been your understanding, but it isn't what he said.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

I understood Elder Ballard to be responding to the criticism that the church has hidden the fact that there is more than one rendition of the first vision. His response to that question seems appropriate to me - namely, that the church hasn't tried to hide the fact that there are multiple accounts of the first vision. 

If you want to complain about the church not having published all of the extant accounts in their entirety early enough and widely enough for your liking, that's fine. But now you're talking about a different criticism. 

huh?  I'm not complaining about the Church having hid the accounts.  I'm saying they did hide at least one account.  I do think it a problem, but that hardly means anything to the point.  It's not a matter of complaining about it.  It's about pointing that out to show the Elder Ballard's comment was not true.  

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/early-accounts-joseph-smiths-first-vision

Where in there is the entire copy of these two previously unpublished versions of the first vision?  Was this in the 1960's?  (I'm having a difficult time getting it to open, so that's why I'm asking).

("The two unpublished accounts, recorded in Joseph Smith’s earliest autobiography and a later journal, were generally forgotten until historians working for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rediscovered and published them in the 1960s.")

Edited November 30, 2017 by ALarson

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where in there is the entire copy of these two previously unpublished versions of the first vision?  Was this in the 1960's?  (I'm having a difficult time getting it to open, so that's why I'm asking).

("The two unpublished accounts, recorded in Joseph Smith’s earliest autobiography and a later journal, were generally forgotten until historians working for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rediscovered and published them in the 1960s.")

it was 1969 and it has the 1832 account and either 1834 or 1835 one I can't recall

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I disagree.  You could certainly discuss the 1832 account in less than an hour.  And, fortunately, most members give the church 3-6 hours of their time EVERY week.  Plenty of time to discuss Joseph's first account of his meeting with the Lord.

Also, when I served my mission in the early 90's we were taught to keep the first discussion (which included teaching the first vision) to under 45 minutes.  I'm confident a class could discuss the 1832 first vision account in under and hour.

The church produced a manual almost 600 pages long for Priesthood and RS that is dedicated to the life and teachings of the Prophet, Joseph Smith.  It includes a chapter on the first vision.  But I don't see the 1832 account nor do I see any reference to the multiple versions.

If you're going to cover multiple accounts, you need to cover all of them. And you need to do so in an environment where people will actually be invested in the discussion - that's why I think a church history (or possibly institute) class would be the way to go. At least, there you have the chance to have everyone actually read the material. 

I'm sorry that you found the Teachings of the Prophet: Joseph Smith manual lacking. I thought it was one of the better manuals, actually. I seem to remember thinking that it came out about the time that the Joseph Smith Papers project was picking up steam, or that they borrowed from that research in some way - I can't recall perfectly now.

Still, now that we have stuff like the Joseph Smith Papers, things like this are really moot. I can understand wanting some of this information sooner, but the information age is working for us now and there are gobs and gobs of things available that simply weren't practical for anyone to access before. And the church has been instrumental in making that happen. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it was 1969 and it has the 1832 account and either 1834 or 1835 one I can't recall

Thanks, Duncan.  It's too bad they weren't put out for the entire church membership to read and become familiar with.  I believe most would have found them interesting (just as members do today who discover them).

 

Edited November 30, 2017 by ALarson

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you're going to cover multiple accounts, you need to cover all of them. And you need to do so in an environment where people will actually be invested in the discussion - that's why I think a church history (or possibly institute) class would be the way to go. At least, there you have the chance to have everyone actually read the material. 

That's fine... take 8 Sundays to do it.  No problem.  My stake currently has a 12-week self-reliance course going on.  The temple prep class takes a number of weeks.  I've attended these "series" of classes for family history and teaching as well.  As I said, there is plenty of time and opportunity to cover the first visions accounts if they wanted.

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'm sorry that you found the Teachings of the Prophet: Joseph Smith manual lacking. I thought it was one of the better manuals, actually. I seem to remember thinking that it came out about the time that the Joseph Smith Papers project was picking up steam, or that they borrowed from that research in some way - I can't recall perfectly now.

I wouldn't describe it as lacking in general.  It was full of great teachings.  But it didn't talk about the first vision accounts - so it lacked that.  And polygamy (like the BY manual).

3 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Still, now that we have stuff like the Joseph Smith Papers, things like this are really moot. I can understand wanting some of this information sooner, but the information age is working for us now and there are gobs and gobs of things available that simply weren't practical for anyone to access before. And the church has been instrumental in making that happen. 

Yes.  Now.  I agree.  But I can't agree with Ballard that there has been no attempt to hide anything from anybody.

And we certainly haven't reached the point of being totally honest and transparent.  But I'm confident we'll get there.

[Amulek]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  I'm not complaining about the Church having hid the accounts. 

Okay. But that's the criticism that Elder Ballard was responding to. Not something else.

 

Quote

I'm saying they did hide at least one account.  I do think it a problem, but that hardly means anything to the point.  It's not a matter of complaining about it.  It's about pointing that out to show the Elder Ballard's comment was not true.  

He said, "We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody."

I understand him to mean that the leaders of the Church are good, decent people, and that there isn't some grand cabal to try and keep everyone in the dark about anything important. I don't think he was trying to make a factual claim that no leader of the Church has ever had a piece of information that they failed to share.

In fact, I'm quite certain that several leaders have plenty of things which they don't share with anyone. I remember hearing Elder Scott speak on one occasion, and he said that he keeps three journals: one is sort of a daily history journal, a second is sort of his small plates kind of journal which contains more of his spiritual thoughts and inspirations, and a third is kept on an encrypted drive on his computer which contains his most sacred, personal experiences - the password to access this last journal lies only in his mind and will go with him when he dies. 

I don't have a problem with what Elder Ballard was getting at. But, I'm not interested in nit-picking the Apostles for everything they say.

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks, Duncan.  It's too bad they weren't put out for the entire church membership to read and become familiar with.  I believe most would have found them interesting (just as members do today who discover them).

 

ah, it's BYU, few cared about it 1969 and few care even now

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

He said, "We would have to say, as two apostles who have covered the world and know the history of the Church and know the integrity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve from the beginning, there has been no attempt on the part of the Church leaders to try to hide anything from anybody."

I understand him to mean that the leaders of the Church are good, decent people, and that there isn't some grand cabal to try and keep everyone in the dark about anything important. I don't think he was trying to make a factual claim that no leader of the Church has ever had a piece of information that they failed to share.

 

I'm fine if you think you meant something other than he said.  But that's not really the issue.  I think the leaders are good, decent people too.  I don't think they are hiding some grand cabal to try and keep everyone in the dark either.  But that again, is hardly the point.  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

ah, it's BYU, few cared about it 1969 and few care even now

Well, the truth is that a very few members even knew to look for different versions of the first vision back then.  More members are learning about them now and from what I've seen, most do care and are interested in reading them.

[Amulek]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm fine if you think you meant something other than he said.  But that's not really the issue.  I think the leaders are good, decent people too.  I don't think they are hiding some grand cabal to try and keep everyone in the dark either.  But that again, is hardly the point.  

If the point you are trying to make is that church leaders are capable of making a statement that, when taken alone with no effort made to charitably understand the general point that they were making, happens to be factually inaccurate...well, color me unimpressed. I've known that for quite some time. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If the point you are trying to make is that church leaders are capable of making a statement that, when taken alone with no effort made to charitably understand the general point that they were making, happens to be factually inaccurate...well, color me unimpressed. I've known that for quite some time. 

No probs.  Wasn’t in anyway trying to impress.  But did wonder why you seemed to object to the obvious

[Amulek]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, the truth is that a very few members even knew to look for different versions of the first vision back then.  More members are learning about them now and from what I've seen, most do care and are interested in reading them.

We had a teacher in our Elders Quorum a year or so back ask the class how many versions of the first vision there are that we know about. I can count on one hand the number of people who were even close to the right answer. Maybe more people are interested now though. That would be a good thing in my view. 

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If the point you are trying to make is that church leaders are capable of making a statement that, when taken alone with no effort made to charitably understand the general point that they were making, happens to be factually inaccurate...well, color me unimpressed. I've known that for quite some time. 

If what Ballard said and what he meant aren't the same thing, shouldn't he issue a clarification?

[rongo]

Bottom line is:

Different (substantially different) FV accounts is a concern for some people (and it isn't a concern for others), and the Church and Church leaders should know the facts about this to be able to help these people. How the Church has handled this (including most recently) is a continuation of the problem, and a potential cause for future concerns.